Conquer Club

any
any
12+
1 v 1
Alright test this out for posting. I think some things need to be considered for 1 v 1 games. I feel for small maps there is little that can be done. But for large maps, I think it is good when there is a cap on the most territories that contribute to max troop income. I.e. Hive and Eurasia, where max is 40 for 10, and 36 for 12 I believe, and a large surplus for losses - excellent. This keeps 1st player and 2nd player somewhat at even odds.

However, its a big problem I find when maps are made with initial 15 territories, and all 1st player has to do is take 1 territory, and it drops second player to 4 troops, instead of 5. And when you think about it, 17 starting territories doesn't make a big difference. Once you are getting more than 3 troops, it is quite easy to start taking more than 1 territory. Will 5 initial troops always be able to take 3 territories lowering 2nd player to 14 for example? No, sometimes bad dice will prevent it. But often enough, good dice will allow big 1st player advantage. These are a few issues I think.

Beyond altering map making techniques, I think we should look into actual game settings as well, and have started some threads with those. Also was suggested to post here.

Map Image:
[bigimg][/bigimg]

random, bunged you into discussions as this is the right place for it. Sent you a PM, hope you got it and lets see what you can do to help us make maps better for you.

random21 wrote:any
any
12+
1 v 1
Alright test this out for posting. I think some things need to be considered for 1 v 1 games. I feel for small maps there is little that can be done. But for large maps, I think it is good when there is a cap on the most territories that contribute to max troop income. I.e. Hive and Eurasia, where max is 40 for 10, and 36 for 12 I believe, and a large surplus for losses - excellent. This keeps 1st player and 2nd player somewhat at even odds.

However, its a big problem I find when maps are made with initial 15 territories, and all 1st player has to do is take 1 territory, and it drops second player to 4 troops, instead of 5. And when you think about it, 17 starting territories doesn't make a big difference. Once you are getting more than 3 troops, it is quite easy to start taking more than 1 territory. Will 5 initial troops always be able to take 3 territories lowering 2nd player to 14 for example? No, sometimes bad dice will prevent it. But often enough, good dice will allow big 1st player advantage. These are a few issues I think.

Beyond altering map making techniques, I think we should look into actual game settings as well, and have started some threads with those. Also was suggested to post here.

Map Image:
[bigimg][/bigimg]

I hate those types of games as well. There's nothing worse than starting second and already being in a whole. Notice I said games not maps because to me those numbers are more determined by the map maker rather than the map. I could be wrong. You'll also notice for Tribal War - Florida the 1v1 count is 10 each. This is the same for Three Kingdoms of China. I did this intentionally because again I very much dislike what I think is an unfair way to start games.

But I'm sure koontz already let you know how important this feedback is early on in the process, so hopefully we'll see more of you.

Since I have been here and a long time before, maps have to meet certain rules before a game play stamp can be given. One of them is golden numbers. These give us a group of numbers that are best for all game types. But 1v1 is probably the biggest issue. A map would never get a stamp if the first player gets a big advantage like extra troops or knocking down player 2 to less troops. So in a game, 12 regions each is a no as if you take 1 region only, player 2 has less troops. Another thing that the gameplay blue boys do is to make sure that bonus drops are now imposable or as close to it as they can. We really do have lots of ways to try and get maps balanced and to try and make sure player 2 does not start at a big disadvantage.

On another note than region counts and bonuses, a map like Conquer Rome would be a perfect 1 vs 1 map if there were not all these neutral territories spread across the country regions. Why are they there, when they don't actually exist in all other settings (i.e. standard multi-player, and team games) ?

I can guarantee that most of those maps where this issue has come into play are older maps, i.e., maps that were put into play before the current Foundry guidelines were instituted.

Under no circumstance now do maps get passed through gameplay in which players are dropped 12, 15, 18, 21, etc., territories.

The_Samurai wrote:On another note than region counts and bonuses, a map like Conquer Rome would be a perfect 1 vs 1 map if there were not all these neutral territories spread across the country regions. Why are they there, when they don't actually exist in all other settings (i.e. standard multi-player, and team games) ?

If you want to know more about how a particular map was developed, look at its entry in "The Atlas" forum. This is the final repository of the development topics for quenched maps.
Neutral territories which appear in 1v1 games but not in other settings usually relate to starting positions. Starting positions are territories which are designed to be distributed evenly among the players in any given game. If the numbers don't divide evenly, those territories can be tossed into the pot for random distribution along wih the non-starting position territories. However, starting positions are usually designated as such because they convey an advantage to a player. Putting them in the pot for random selection means that one player might get all the extras (e.g. 8 starts, 5 players => 4 get one each, one gets 4!), so the starting positions are typically also defined as what the Foundry refers to as "underlying neutrals": if they are not used as starting positions and given evenly to each player, they start as neutral territories.
In some cases, just having a lot of the starting territories can convey an unfair advantage to the first player, so recently, the ability to set a maximum number of starting positions per player has been added. Conquer Rome uses this and sets it to 2. So even though there are eight starting positions (the Barbarian Tribes), you will never start with more than 2. This means that in a 1v1 game, four tribes start neutral. The rest of the neutrals on that map are just there to make life difficult.

Well, in any big map(for ex +6 or more for the starting player) is almost lost for the 2nd player, only dice can save him in 95% of the cases(umless other player really sucks)...when u play trench the situation is even more dramatic.
Thats why i try to avoid big maps in 1vs1, but i also like to play random maps so i have to deal with it.
I dont have a solution for this and dont know if its possible to change bonus per territs only in 1vs1 games.

For ex: this game( Game 12342515) was over even before i take my first turn. Im not complaining because i took advantage of it too in the past. But maybe something can be done about that in 1vs 1 games

It's definitely hard getting the starting numbers right for those large maps. When you knock the number of starting positions down the map runs the risk of just being a bunch of neutrals to go through. Which is what some maps are designed to be, but as everyone has seen some are not.

I would like to see an evaluation of current maps to see if the starting numbers can be adjusted to make the maps more fair, and as pointed out in line with the current rule that no map will have players starting with 12, 15, etc. terts. I say this bc I just started a game on Italia that before my first turn was over. The guy got +4 took one tert, which give him a capital bonus, and knocked me down to only +3 which combined with my bad luck basically gives him the game. I know it's a combination of a few things, but why can't the starting numbers for this map be adjusted so that each player in a 1v1 game starts with 10 or 11 terts?

Armandolas wrote:Well, in any big map(for ex +6 or more for the starting player) is almost lost for the 2nd player, only dice can save him in 95% of the cases(umless other player really sucks)...when u play trench the situation is even more dramatic.
Thats why i try to avoid big maps in 1vs1, but i also like to play random maps so i have to deal with it.
I dont have a solution for this and dont know if its possible to change bonus per territs only in 1vs1 games.

Just like you, I avoid big maps if given a choice, but I play a lot of Random so I get hit with them anyway.

What the site really needs is a Limited Random function, which selects from among maps given a certain set of parameters, such as no more than 65 starting terts. That, however, is not a foundry issue. Given what rules they have to work with, the foundry does a good job of keeping the maps balanced for all types of gameplay.

Dukasaur wrote:What the site really needs is a Limited Random function

Agree.
I have received in more than an occasion a request to not have some maps listed into the random selection. Someone ask for not having supersized maps in the drop, someone else ask for not have too big maps for 1vs1 games.

Personally I think that all supersize maps should be taken out from the list of random maps and mostly I agree that all big maps (number of regions) should be kept out when the players are less than 3.
But as you said it's not exactly foundry stuff...

Dukasaur wrote:Given what rules they have to work with, the foundry does a good job of keeping the maps balanced for all types of gameplay.

I think that at some point we should seriously consider the possibility to not follow this rule in all cases. Actually we have a so large amount of game types/options that it's always more hard to fit all maps for all game types.
I mean, is there a moment in which the necessity to fit all game option will become a problem instead of a point of strenght? I prefer to not have a map available for a game type instead of having one that fit all them but really in a bad way. Just a thought.

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:What the site really needs is a Limited Random function

Agree.
I have received in more than an occasion a request to not have some maps listed into the random selection. Someone ask for not having supersized maps in the drop, someone else ask for not have too big maps for 1vs1 games.

Personally I think that all supersize maps should be taken out from the list of random maps and mostly I agree that all big maps (number of regions) should be kept out when the players are less than 3.
But as you said it's not exactly foundry stuff...

Dukasaur wrote:Given what rules they have to work with, the foundry does a good job of keeping the maps balanced for all types of gameplay.

I think that at some point we should seriously consider the possibility to not follow this rule in all cases. Actually we have a so large amount of game types/options that it's always more hard to fit all maps for all game types.
I mean, is there a moment in which the necessity to fit all game option will become a problem instead of a point of strenght? I prefer to not have a map available for a game type instead of having one that fit all them but really in a bad way. Just a thought.

Nobodies

we already have maps not available for certain game types. Manual (Jamaica i think and a few others).

however the Start A Game page still lets you create them and CC counts wins on them toward that setting's medal.

greenoaks wrote:however the Start A Game page still lets you create them

Exactly.
Maps not good for certain settings should become not availabe into the "start a game" selection (i.e. the option turn to gray when something else is selected)
Obivously I'm not saying to apply it backward (apart few cases like Jamaica map) but certainly it could be a good thing to consider for future maps.

Nobodies

The sooner we have a map browser that is more than an alphabetical list of all maps, the sooner we can consider designating maps as limited to certain game parameter combinations.

ender516 wrote:The sooner we have a map browser that is more than an alphabetical list of all maps, the sooner we can consider designating maps as limited to certain game parameter combinations.

are you asking for my help ?

greenoaks wrote:

ender516 wrote:The sooner we have a map browser that is more than an alphabetical list of all maps, the sooner we can consider designating maps as limited to certain game parameter combinations.

are you asking for my help ?

I don't think I was asking anything. I was alluding to the long-rumoured and -awaited project to classify and rate maps and update the "browse maps" function.